Ravindra Lohara And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 53 of 2017
1. Ravindra Lohara, S/o. Ramesh Lohara, aged about 22 years, CasteLohar, R/o. Village- Raideeh, Thana - Raideeh, District - Gumla (Jharkhand)
2. Ramesh Uranw, S/o. Rajmohan, aged about 19 years, Caste-Uranw, R/o. Village-Raideeh, Thana - Raideeh, District - Gumla (Jharkhand) ---- Applicants
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station - Jashpur, Jashpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicants :
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent :
Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 17/01/2017 1.
This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.196/2016, registered at Police Station- Jashpur, District - Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 399, 402 of Indian Penal Code and 25 & 27 of Arms Act.
2.
Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 09.09.2016 on an information received that the applicants along with others are making preparation for committing dacoity, when they were coming in Bolero vehicle it was intercepted and from the applicant No.2, Ramesh Uranw one Pistol was recovered and subsequently the vehicle was seized from the applicant No.1, Ravindra Lohara and from the other coaccused other weapon were recovered. Thereby the offence has been committed.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and there is no evidence to this
Page No.2 fact that the applicants and other co-accused have come here to commit offence and they have come for the marriage. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused in this case has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2016 in M.Cr.C. No.7908/2016, therefore, the counsel prays that the applicants may also be enlarged on bail.
4.
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application, however, he do not dispute the fact that similarly placed co-accused has been enlarged on bail.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further taking into the fact that similarly placed co-accused in this case has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2016 in M.Cr.C. No.7908/2016, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicants should be enlarged on regular bail. 7.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
8.
It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for their appearance as and when directed.
9.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Balram